Steam-MCP

get_friend_list

Retrieve the list of friends for a Steam user by providing their 64-bit Steam ID. Optionally filter by relationship type.

Instructions

Get the friend list for a Steam user.

Requires STEAM_API_KEY.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": {"friends": [...]}}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "steamid": "<steamid>"
    },
    "name": "get_friend_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`steamid`	Yes	64-bit Steam ID of the user.
`relationship`	No	Relationship filter: 'all' or 'friend'.	all

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for an API key and provides a return format, but does not discuss error states, rate limits, or data freshness. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences plus a return format block. Every sentence adds value (purpose, auth requirement, return format). No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema provided), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, auth, and return format. It lacks detail on the structure of the friends list, but is still largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (steamid and relationship). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get the friend list for a Steam user', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_player_summaries' and 'get_own_profile', which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'Requires STEAM_API_KEY' as a prerequisite, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain when the friend list is appropriate compared to, for example, 'get_player_summaries'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server